Meeting Information
-Convene
-Pledge of Allegiance
CONSENT AGENDA
(1) (a) Consider approval of Commission Orders
REGULAR AGENDA
(2) Discussion of Disposition of County Owned House on <1/2xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Rhode Island (Weinaug)
(3) Solicit public input regarding projects to add to 5-Year Plan request for federally assisted projects (Keith Browning)
(4) Consider and determine projects to add to 5-Year Plan request for federally assisted projects (Keith Browning)
(5) Planning Items:
(a) TA-12-05-03: Text Amendment to Floodplain Regulations in the County (Bryan Dyer)
(b) TA-02-01-04: Consider text amendment to the County Zoning Regulations regarding communication towers less than 100' in height (Keith Dabney/Sandy Day)
(6) Other Business
(a)Jones called the meeting to order at 7:09 P.M. on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 with all members present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
CONSENT AGENDA 04-14-04
There were no consent items.
MISCELLANEOUS 04-14-04
Kelly Greunke, Intern, presented information regarding disposal of the house on county-owned property located at 1120 Rhode Island. Greunke noted that since the house is contained within the environs of two (2) historic buildings -- the Douglas County Courthouse, and the Old English Lutheran Church -- the Historic Resources Commission Review Application must be submitted to the Planning office.
The Board received comments from marci francisco and Melinda Henderson regarding concerns of the County turning the vacant property into a parking lot. Ed Tato, President of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, stated that there needs to be a plan if the house is to be moved. Tato further stated that from the neighborhood's perspective, the lots are not appropriate for anything other than residential. He noted that Tenants to Homeowners would like to lease the property and have offered to build a facility that would accommodate the storage of documents, but their offer has not been acknowledged.
Johnson stated that he was unaware of the storage space offer and noted that there had not been any serious discussion by this Commission to commit resources to build a parking lot.
Jones noted concern regarding the compliance issue -- he believed it was hypocritical to force compliance with the County's regulations, but the County is in violation with the house. Jones stated he thought the lots ought to be sold and the money committed to the fairgrounds or some other project.
McElhaney stated that the parking lot issue has been brought up because the taxpayers, jurors, and many others have repeatedly complained about the parking situation around the Courthouse and that he believed the County is doing a disservice to our neighbors by allowing parking on the streets. McElhaney further stated he believed the house should be removed as it is creating a liability for the County.
Johnson stated that the County should be good neighbors, but he was not willing to sign off the ownership of the lots. The County's needs in five (5) or ten (10) years is unknown and he did not believe the lots would solve the parking problems. Johnson suggested that the County go through the process of getting the house and garage torn down and plan to preserve green space to be maintained as County grounds until such time the neighborhood and County agree to its future use. It would be cleaner and more pleasant looking.
Jones stated he did not feel that outcome was very likely. He questioned what would happen if the Historic Resources Commission rejected the plan -- what would be the next step1/2
Johnson replied that the County ought to try and then fall back on another option not yet identified.
Jones asked if it was the consensus of the Board to submit the application to the Historic Resources Commission.
Johnson stated that he believed there needs to be some sort of plan such as green space maintained to standards of the County's other property.
Tato stated that he would not support demolition and was not in favor of open space. The County owns the house, the County let it deteriorate, and the County should fix it.
Jones stated that the Commission wasn't any closer to a resolution and the item should be tabled.
Johnson stated the Board would continue to abide by the gentlemen's agreement that the County is not going to move in any direction without communication with the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association. No action was taken.
PUBLIC WORKS 04-14-04
The Board discussed the Five-Year Plan Project List for Federally Assisted Projects. Keith Browning, Director of Public Works/County Engineer, was present for the discussion. Pam Maley and Richard Heckler, representatives of the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, were also present. Browning noted that the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) annually requests that counties update the projects included in the county portion of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) These are projects for which the county wishes to use federal funding assistance (typically 80% federal, 20% local) in an amount not to exceed the obligation authority for each county. The projects currently on Douglas County's list are as follows:
(1) Route 1029 from Route 438 to Lecompton -- Safety improvements including extensive reconstruction to improve sight distance, 8' paved shoulders, flattening frontslopes and backslopes, and replacing and extending culverts. Includes reconfiguration of Route 1029/Route 438 intersection to a curved alignment.
(2) Replacement of Bridge No. 09.24-16.00 on Route 1055 approximately 3/4 mile south of Route 458. Includes improving approach roadway alignment.
Browning explained that Project (1) is under construction. Hamm completed construction of two reinforced concrete box culverts in fall 2003 and resumed construction activities on March 22, 2004. Grading work is currently underway in the northern portion of the project from the Heetco facility to N 2050 Road at Lecompton. It is anticipated the project will be completed late this summer. Public Works staff is providing construction inspection services for the project.
Project (2) is under design by Finney & Turnipseed. In addition to the bridge replacement and improving alignment of the roadway curve through the bridge, the possibility of improving the second curve south of the bridge using STP- Safety funding is being explored. This project is currently scheduled for a January 2006 bid letting.
Browning also recommended that the following projects be added to the 5-year plan:
(1) Replacement of Bridge No. 14.00-23.66 on Route 442 0.3 miles west of the Johnson County line;
(2) Replacement of Bridge No. 06.97-01.00 on Route 1023 just south of Route 460; and
(3) Redecking of Bridge No. 13.00-19.00 on Route 1057 over the Wakarusa River (0.5 miles south of K-10).
Jones asked for public comment. No comments were received. Jones made a motion to approve the Five-Year Plan Project Listing for Federally Assisted Projects as recommended; motion was seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously.
PLANNING 04-14-04
The Board discussed TA-02-01-04: text amendment to the County Zoning Regulations regarding communication towers less than 100' in height. Sandra Day, staff member of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, and Keith Dabney, Director of Zoning and Codes, were present for the discussion. Day explained that the County Zoning Regulations were amended in 1995 to implement standards relating to the construction of communication towers. The regulations specifically address radio, television, telecommunication and microwave towers as Conditional Uses in Section 19-4 of the County Zoning Regulations. The regulations are applicable specifically to all towers of 100' or more in height, and all towers exceeding 40' if building mounted, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The current regulations do not address the approval process for towers less than 100'.
The County Zoning office has received multiple requests for 99' towers in the unincorporated areas of Douglas County and has found the existing regulations deficient, lacking a clear review process or public notice procedure for towers under 100' in height. The proposed Text Amendment was developed to correct the identified deficiency and to establish a reasonable review process with a public notice procedure for tower structures less than 100' in height. The pro posed amendment would change the height requirement to 60'.
Jones stated he wanted to make absolutely sure 60' was the appropriate height instead of 40' or 50'. He also stated that he would like some sort of documentation that applicants had attempted to co-locate. Jones asked if staff knew whether people actively attempted to co-locate. Day responded that they did.
The Board made various changes to the proposed amendments to be approved at a later date. No action was taken.
PLANNING 04-14-04
The Board discussed TA-12-05-03: Text Amendments to Article 28 of the Douglas County Zoning regulations regarding Floodplain Management Regulations. Bryan Dyer, staff member of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, was present for the discussion. Dyer explained that the Planning Commission's Special Project Committee drafted floodplain regulations and forwarded them to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the regulations. The floodplain regulations are in overall terms which require adoption by the community (County Commission) in order for residents to participate in floodplain insurance programs. Dyer further explained that essentially the floodplain regulations break down the unincorporated area of Douglas County in two (2) parts -- within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) for the City of Lawrence, and outside the UGA. There are no real changes to the regulations outside the UGA other than some clarification language. Areas within the UGA will require an approved hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) study from a licensed engineer demonstrating there will be no rise in the base flood elevation and no increase in flood velocities at any point resulting from the proposed development. Dyer stated that there is some concern in regards to the fact that the City has adopted more stringent flood plain regulations and how that fits in with the UGA when property gets annexed into the City of Lawrence. It would be a benefit to the public and to private individuals if they were not annexed in as a non-complying manner. If they did just what the current requirements are, which are to simply elevate the structure, that structure would not comply with the City's floodplain regulations when they were annexed.
Jones asked what happens when a non-compliant structure is annexed in.
Dyer's response was that there are issues in regards to whether structures can be rebuilt if they are destroyed, and if the structure is rebuilt, what standards they need to follow. There are also occasions when non-compliant structures will raise red flags on the basic level of trying to get title insurance.
Jones stated that his understanding was that the annexation would still occur, however, if the structure were changed or was damaged, the owner might be forced to spend a lot of money in order to come into compliance.
Dyer stated that was true. Dyer noted that the regulations state that if you are going to develop your property inside the UGA, you will need plat the property and provide the signed H&H study stating that whatever development you wish to do within the floodplain area will not increase the base flood elevation or the flood velocity.
Jones then questioned whether the H&H study was expensive. Dyer's response was that he believe it was.
Johnson asked whether the results of the study were subject to debate at the Commission level as to whether or not the applicant can or cannot build.
Dyer responded that as a part of the platting process, a statement indicating whether or not the development is such that it d s not increase the base elevation of a flood velocity will be signed and sealed by a licensed engineer and reviewed by the Douglas County Public Works Director.
McElhaney questioned whether the H&H study is based upon the FEMA regula tions. Dyer stated it was. McElhaney then noted that if the Board were to add additional restrictions above and beyond the FEMA regulations, the engineer would specifically put forth his recommendation based upon the FEMA regula tions. Anything above and beyond the FEMA standards would be at the scrutiny of the Board.
Dyer explained that FEMA has guidelines of how the study is to be performed. They have a large book that shows how to do the cross sections, calculations, etc. The H&H study will be conducted by those standards, based upon the same guidelines and standards that FEMA uses. To participate in the flood insurance program, the participating community must adopt the basic standards (which Douglas County has done) and the community cannot go below those standards. However, the community can require regulations that are above and beyond the basic FEMA regulations.
John Selk, licensed engineer, stated that the H&H study will be based upon whatever the policy or the guideline requires. The way the regulations are written, the engineer would have to submit what would be approved by the local authorities, in this case, the County Public Works Engineer.
McElhaney questioned whether it was open to interpretation. Selk replied that it is a very well-defined protocol.
Jones then asked whether the city tacked any elevation on to the FEMA standards. Selk replied that the City requires an additional 2' freeboard. Jones questioned whether the County was going to add this additional 2' requirement within the UGA. Dyer replied that the requirement was not in these regulations because the County d s not have the topographic information that the City d s.
Jones noted that the problem is a step is being created that is between the unincorporated area and the City, but since the County is not adding the additional 2' freeboard, the County could be creating a non-compliance situation when they're annexed into the City.
Johnson stated that he was under the impression that if these regulations were adopted, the City standards would apply to any new development within the UGA. Dyer stated that if the development is within the floodplain, they would apply. However, there is an area that is outside the mapped floodplain of the County that has the potential of being annexed into the City of Lawrence as non-compliant. This is because the County d s not have the topographic information in the UGA in order to establish the 2' freeboard. Dyer explained that when the aerials were flown, the County chose not to participate in the additional expense of obtaining the contour maps to establish those boundaries.
Jones then asked if there was some way to approximate the 2' freeboard. Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, stated that the first step to accomplish that would be to get a cost estimate to obtain the contour maps so the boundaries can be established.
Jones requested that County staff work with staff from LandPlan and others to discuss whether there is any possibility to accomplish this short of spending several hundred thousand dollars to see if there is any modeling to get us reasonably close so the H&H study could then make up the difference. Jones then stated he would like to have the option of adopting regulations that are fully compliant with the City. Jones further requested staff to provide a copy of an H&H study for his review and to provide some sort of idea of the amount of acreage in the floodplain. No action was taken.
Jones made a motion for adjournment; seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Charles Jones, Chairman Bob Johnson, Member
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Patty Jaimes, County Clerk Jere McElhaney, Member
Time and Date